Sony certainly made all the right noises about the difficulties and potential inherent in virtual reality when it unveiled its Project Morpheus headset earlier this week. Words are cheap, though; the proof of Sony's chops in the quickly developing world of modern VR hardware would only come with the chance to put the device on and explore a virtual world ourselves.

We got an opportunity to do just that, and we came away impressed with Sony's headset, both from design and performance standpoints. Even in its current early state, Project Morpheus is obviously a serious effort at creating a strong VR experience, and it even surpasses the previous best-in-class Oculus Rift in some ways.

Putting the Morpheus headset on is a bit of a production at this point, but only a bit. The first step was lowering the top, cushioned headband portion over the top of my head and adjusting a crank on the back to tighten it around my forehead and the back of my cranium. I then had to lower the visor portion down in front of my eyes and adjust its distance by pushing a button on the base and sliding the display in and out. The 15 to 25 mm of "eye relief," as Sony describes it, actually provides a functionally large focusing range for a screen resting that close to your face. I ended up sliding the display as close to my face as possible, hovering the unit just barely above my nose, but users with glasses or trouble focusing will probably appreciate the ability to get a little more space.

Finally, the demo headphones were lowered over the outside of the unit. The Morpheus' top band actually got in the way of the ear cups forming a good seal around my ears, letting a good deal of sound from the outside world into my demo. The reps tried to point out the directionality of the sounds being pumped into my ears as I moved and turned, but I found it hard to discern any difference from plain old directionless stereo.

Getting the weight of the unit balanced just right took a little finagling, and getting everything set up is a more involved process than simply slapping the Rift and its elastic band over my face, ski-goggle style. Once everything is set, though, the payoff is a much more comfortable VR experience. Resting the weight of the unit on the top portion of the skull rather than right around the eyes is an inspired decision that makes it easier to forget you're wearing a headset at all (which is kind of the point, right?). The Morpheus headset seemed to be a little heavier than the latest Rift developer kit, but the way that weight is balanced and positioned made it seem much less obtrusive.

I'm the type of person who gets uncomfortable even wearing light sunglasses on my face, so having the display housing hover just in front of my face rather than pressed up against it with the tight seal of the Rift was a very welcome change. The only real downside to this difference is that the Morpheus unit doesn't form a perfect barrier that blocks out all external light; the thin, rubbery black extension left a slight gap that allowed me to see a sliver of the world out of the bottom, no matter how much I adjusted it. While it was nice to be able to see my surroundings a bit (to avoid bumping into things or people, for instance), it definitely distracted from the sense of "presence" that Sony says it's going for.

Performance

Kyle Orland

The glowing blue lights on the front corners really make this look like something out of the not-too-distant future.

A somewhat overhead view shows an elastic headband in addition to the cushioned white plastic portion, which cranks into place. Also, note the tracking lights on the back of the unit.

The converter box hooked up to the Morpheus takes in a good number of inputs from the PS4 (or perhaps a PC dev kit)...

... and converts them to a single wire that goes out to the headset.

Virtual reality is serious business.

The new Robocop's got nothing on me.

Hey, what's happening back there?

I got to try out two Morpheus tech demos at Sony's GDC booth. The first involved a lightly interactive deep-sea dive in a cage. This largely served as a fancy virtual aquarium, with schools of fish swimming right by my head and giving the head-tracking functionality a good workout. The demo offered a great sense of freedom in being able to walk around the small, caged environment, letting me turn around completely or even bend down while seeing my in-game avatar bend at the knees in the same way.

When I walked forward to the edge of the cage at one point and craned my neck over the lip to look down at a dropping oxygen tank, it was probably the most striking moment of virtual reality I've yet experienced. That is until the end of the demo, when a violent shark attack shook the cage around me, literally making me jump, The only thing that really took away from the feeling was the fact that the ground beneath me didn't shake in real life to match the floor of my VR cage. If an earthquake had hit San Francisco at that moment, I probably wouldn't have noticed.

The second demo was a medieval-themed target practice course that used two Move controllers to give me control of disembodied virtual hands. I first used these hands to grab and pummel a floating armored dummy to great effect. Then I grabbed a sword standing at my side and used it to chop off the dummy's limbs one by one. Finally, I was given a virtual crossbow to aim at some targets sitting a few apparent meters away.

When the Move tracking was working, it was pretty incredible to see what seemed like pretty close to true one-to-one correspondence between my real and virtual hands, with no real delay or misalignment. I did run into some significant tracking problems during my demo, though, seemingly when the camera lost track of the Move controllers as I reached too low or too far forward. When aiming the crossbow, I really wanted to try peering down the virtual sights to line up my shot, but the software seemed completely unwilling to comply, simply resetting the weapon's position to hover a few feet in front of me when I tried.

Despite the problems with Move tracking, though, I found the head tracking to be spot on throughout both demos. Morpheus never lost track of my place or perspective in the world, no matter how much I walked around, tilted my head, shook, or even jumped up and down. Sony engineer Dr. Richard Marks told me that the current headset has a 40 ms delay between movement and pixels on the display, which was reduced slightly at times with predictive movement modeling. Marks said he'd like to get it down to at most 20 ms, but even at this stage, things seemed plenty responsive to me, and I did not experience any feelings of nausea or displacement.

Despite the use of relatively slow LCD displays, the Morpheus didn't have any of the kinds of blurry, overly persistent images that plagued early Rift prototypes and developer kits. And while both the Rift and the Morpheus share the same 1080p resolution at this point, the image on Sony's unit felt the slightest bit sharper, with a less of a visible "screen door" pattern between the pixels (this last part could be my imagination, though).

The worst thing I can point to about Project Morpheus' design, really, is the single wire leading from a junction box to the headset, which I could feel bumping against me at points and threatening to get tangled as I moved about. Marks said the engineering team was investigating the potential for a completely wireless version in the future, but he didn't seem all that hopeful about achieving the required low latency without a direct connection.

All in all, I came away extremely impressed by my brief time with Project Morpheus. It's the first of a number of VR solutions I've tried that really feels like it's in the same class as the Oculus Rift, and it even feels superior in areas like comfort and full 360 degree tracking. We're looking forward to seeing more examples of how Sony and other developers plan to use this new headset after hundreds of developer kits start going out next month.

Promoted Comments

I hope these companies agree on a standard API/SDK eventually. I think that could be a big limitation going forward. Just think if you had to make sure your monitor was compatible with your latest game. At least a standard API/SDK would make the software side much easier for developers.

As much as I want VR tech to happen, the picture here summarizes everything that will hold it back from mainstream acceptance. Until this technology is as invisible as possible, it's going to face massive, massive problems as far as accessibility. Sure, I can see myself strapping into one. But I can't see other people in my life doing the same.

That's the magic point-- when it can be done in a way that makes the mainstream person go "yeah, I can get into that. Carrying around a clunker of a Windows tablet made some jobs easier, but it didn't make people go "yeah, I can see myself using that." The iPad, love or hate Apple, did.

For all the fears of privacy, the Kinect is still the device I think has the greatest chance of consumer adoption, largely because it sort of fades away after you set it up. As the tech miniaturizes, putting it in TVs, monitors and computers will help that.

A solution that requires holding two bright glowing balls while you're in a giant glowing headset just doesn't scream mainstream success to me.

5454 posts | registered Feb 5, 2009

Kyle Orland
Kyle is the Senior Gaming Editor at Ars Technica, specializing in video game hardware and software. He has journalism and computer science degrees from University of Maryland. He is based in the Washington, DC area. Emailkyle.orland@arstechnica.com//Twitter@KyleOrl

Great impressions, thanks Kyle. I'm stunned Sony's tech seems to be so far along. If they're aiming for a fall/holiday 2015 release then it seems like there's ample time to get the latency down and tweak the design. I hope that's enough time for great software to be developed.

Sony needs to get some games on this platform that are smaller experiences yet are fully and truly a game - not just mini games. They shouldn't rely too heavily on ultra-realistic graphics. They need to take one or two mechanics/systems and just have fun with it in 3D space.

Great impressions, thanks Kyle. I'm stunned Sony's tech seems to be so far along. If they're aiming for a fall/holiday 2015 release then it seems like there's ample time to get the latency down and tweak the design. I hope that's enough time for great software to be developed.

Sony needs to get some games on this platform that are smaller experiences yet are fully and truly a game - not just mini games. They shouldn't rely too heavily on ultra-realistic graphics. They need to take one or two mechanics/systems and just have fun with it in 3D space.

Hey, Sony, it's time to reboot Jumping Flash!

Sure, if you want to make people sick BECAUSE of a realistic VR experience.

I hope these companies agree on a standard API/SDK eventually. I think that could be a big limitation going forward. Just think if you had to make sure your monitor was compatible with your latest game. At least a standard API/SDK would make the software side much easier for developers.

Very interesting. This could end up being very disruptive for occulus rift. That being said the competition is only good. I really only play a couple specific genres of games but they could benefit from strong vr implementation.

I know some are convinced that vr headsets are the future of gaming. I have no reason to disagree with this. I just know I am not in a guinea pig phase so I will be waiting out a fully fleshed headset integrated with a game I want to play. I don't see myself pushing either just to play with the tech at this point.

it's great to hear that the product performance is competitive. I won't believe they're real competitors to the rift until they release pricing info though. Sony's history in VR suggests this will be $1000+ headset, which isn't competitive.

it's great to hear that the product performance is competitive. I won't believe they're real competitors to the rift until they release pricing info though. Sony's history in VR suggests this will be $1000+ headset, which isn't competitive.

`Oh I don't know. Just look at all the stuff geeks buy. They don't even blink when it comes to $500 phones, or $1000 TVs. And let's not mention the Ars God box.

Updated dev kit at GDC next year (maybe), announcement and price at E3 2015, available Fall/Winter 2015.

Sony has a bit of room to breath here, as they aren't directly competing with the Oculus (which currently only works on PCs), and Microsoft hasn't shown any VR hardware. The most they've said is that they're "exploring" it, although several patents in that direction has leaked. It's hard to imagine Microsoft beating Sony to the market with a VR headset unless they buy Oculus.

Beyond that, the additional horsepower of the PS4 will be important for VR, as my understanding is that pushing the dual-images required for the VR isn't cheap, processing-power-wise. That's not to say the Xbox One couldn't do it, but I doubt it could do it as well.

Since it's just as applicable here, I'll just reiterate my post from the article on MS' dismissal of VR technology: I don't see these implementations of VR being ready for the living room. Almost ready for the PC, probably - going by reports and reviews, the tech sounds just about set to have a major impact on the video game experience on PCs.

But Sony, I think, is misguided in trying to bring this to the living room. Like PC gaming, a VR headset is an inherently isolating experience, and matches poorly with living room gaming as a result.

Probably the biggest reason I've moved away from PC gaming to console gaming is because I ended up with a family, and console gaming is a more social experience than the inherently solitary PC gaming experience. My wife can participate in a console game (she is better at observing small details of the environment than I am, which makes her better at identifying where collectibles are than I am), I can still interact with my daughter, I can show off new games to friends when they come over, or dive into some good old couch multiplayer.

If "gaming" becomes "dad goes and sits in the corner wearing a silly hat," then gaming will also become something dad doesn't do.

When VR becomes something that's a shared experience (and buying $350 headsets for everyone who comes over doesn't cut it), then it's ready for living room gaming. Until then, it's perfectly suited for traditional PC gaming, but not the living room.

Just a minor nit: the eye relief distance has nothing to do with focusing. It only defines the space where your pupil must be in order to catch the projected rays from the screen+optics. It also indicates if there's enough room for eyeglasses or not.

The focus is predetermined by the optical setup on the other side of the lens. It should make the screen appear to be ten feet away or more, at which point the rays coming out the near side of the lens should be close to parallel. Moving your eyes back and forth a centimeter makes no focus difference when viewing nearly parallel rays.

It's just like looking at a TV screen 10 feet away. You don't have to adjust focus for moving your head back and forth a few inches. Now just imagine that someone put up a glass wall in front of you and blacked out all of it except for a couple of holes where your eyes could line up to. The eye relief is now defined as how close your pupils need to be to those holes such that you can see the whole TV screen; move too far back, and the edges get cut off.

Since it's just as applicable here, I'll just reiterate my post from the article on MS' dismissal of VR technology: I don't see these implementations of VR being ready for the living room. Almost ready for the PC, probably - going by reports and reviews, the tech sounds just about set to have a major impact on the video game experience on PCs.

But Sony, I think, is misguided in trying to bring this to the living room. Like PC gaming, a VR headset is an inherently isolating experience, and matches poorly with living room gaming as a result.

Probably the biggest reason I've moved away from PC gaming to console gaming is because I ended up with a family, and console gaming is a more social experience than the inherently solitary PC gaming experience. My wife can participate in a console game (she is better at observing small details of the environment than I am, which makes her better at identifying where collectibles are than I am), I can still interact with my daughter, I can show off new games to friends when they come over, or dive into some good old couch multiplayer.

If "gaming" becomes "dad goes and sits in the corner wearing a silly hat," then gaming will also become something dad doesn't do.

When VR becomes something that's a shared experience (and buying $350 headsets for everyone who comes over doesn't cut it), then it's ready for living room gaming. Until then, it's perfectly suited for traditional PC gaming, but not the living room.

I think your assumption is that everyone uses their living room in the same way. As a single dude who lives alone, my living room is only as social as I want it to be. For gaming dads I know, the PS4 controller's stereo headset port has been a God-send when it comes to late-night living room gaming, and I just view a virtual reality headset is an extension of that.

No one is saying you can or should use VR for every game - I wouldn't want to play Towerfall in VR-world - but for games that are already isolating or immersive experienced, it'll be pretty amazing. Think of it like Rock Band instruments - those peripherals only came out of the closet when you had the right people and the right games, but when they did come out, it was pretty awesome.

Beyond that, Sony has even indicated they have some ideas on how to use VR socially; I believe other players can see a different image on the TV screen and play the "standard" way, so you could theoretically have a party game where one person is strapped into the VR headset playing one way, and others have controllers and are playing a different way.

And Sony had us believe that it wasn't going to be until the PS9 that we get some good virtual reality!

I was hugely excited for the Rift. Now I'm excited for this too. And excited that VR is really starting to get mainstream. Ever since I read that scene in A Wrinkle In Time where the main character got to sit in a machine that created a virtual reality based on whatever he wanted, I became enraptured by the concept of VR. I'm definitely looking forward to giving this a try myself, someday.

Since it's just as applicable here, I'll just reiterate my post from the article on MS' dismissal of VR technology: I don't see these implementations of VR being ready for the living room. Almost ready for the PC, probably - going by reports and reviews, the tech sounds just about set to have a major impact on the video game experience on PCs.

But Sony, I think, is misguided in trying to bring this to the living room. Like PC gaming, a VR headset is an inherently isolating experience, and matches poorly with living room gaming as a result.

Probably the biggest reason I've moved away from PC gaming to console gaming is because I ended up with a family, and console gaming is a more social experience than the inherently solitary PC gaming experience. My wife can participate in a console game (she is better at observing small details of the environment than I am, which makes her better at identifying where collectibles are than I am), I can still interact with my daughter, I can show off new games to friends when they come over, or dive into some good old couch multiplayer.

If "gaming" becomes "dad goes and sits in the corner wearing a silly hat," then gaming will also become something dad doesn't do.

When VR becomes something that's a shared experience (and buying $350 headsets for everyone who comes over doesn't cut it), then it's ready for living room gaming. Until then, it's perfectly suited for traditional PC gaming, but not the living room.

Microsoft is already looking into VR-like experiences. They've had a concept for a long time using the Kinect and a projector to expand the game world into your entire living room. That's like taking a VR headset and blowing it up huge. The Kinect already provides full body motion tracking in 3D space, allowing you to be inserted into the world, so to speak. They've got their own novel system that they're working on. It doesn't look like headset-based VR, but it's nonetheless a form a VR.

I am still baffled as to this piece of hardware, if only because the implication is that it will be used with the ps4.

Don't get me wrong, I love my console, but it is absolutely out of the question to expect one to be able to push the kind of resolution and framerate required for VR.

There are two ways I can see this working: either it IS for playstation only, but the only uses for it are simplified, minimally-interactive "experiences" such as the fish tank simulation in the article, or (less likely, but possible) it is actually made available for use with PC.

I say less likely, because that would involve both shunning their own console and acknowledging the existence of the PC market, which Japanese developers simply do not do.

I think your assumption is that everyone uses their living room in the same way. As a single dude who lives alone, my living room is only as social as I want it to be. For gaming dads I know, the PS4 controller's stereo headset port has been a God-send when it comes to late-night living room gaming, and I just view a virtual reality headset is an extension of that.

No one is saying you can or should use VR for every game - I wouldn't want to play Towerfall in VR-world - but for games that are already isolating or immersive experienced, it'll be pretty amazing. Think of it like Rock Band instruments - those peripherals only came out of the closet when you had the right people and the right games, but when they did come out, it was pretty awesome.

Beyond that, Sony has even indicated they have some ideas on how to use VR socially; I believe other players can see a different image on the TV screen and play the "standard" way, so you could theoretically have a party game where one person is strapped into the VR headset playing one way, and others have controllers and are playing a different way.

A fair point; obviously not everyone uses their living room the same way I do.

That said, I think my underlying (and unstated to keep my post concise, perhaps unwisely) assumptions are sound enough for the point to stand.

First, I'm assuming that the headset won't be priced as a throwaway/rare use item. The OR is a $350 piece of hardware; it's almost as much as a PS4. I would expect Sony's hardware to be in the same ballpark, and I just don't see many people buying something that costs almost as much as the console unless they can use it almost as much as the console. The Rock Band strat was a $60 (IIRC) peripheral; cheap enough that buying an extra for guests to use was reasonable.

Second, I'm assuming that a material chunk of the console gaming demographic are now adults with families. The former part of that assumption is based on what I've seen of demographic information in the console gaming market. The latter is extrapolation, based on the massive percentage of adults who are married with kids. This is not to say that the young and/or single gamer doesn't exist, but I don't think that demographic is large enough to carry a piece of console gaming tech to market success on its own.

Regarding the idea of one person wearing a headset while others see a different image on the TV screen, a few thoughts:

1) I'm not convinced the PS4 hardware is up to the task. 1080p/60fps isn't so within the performance envelope of the PS4 (or the XB1, to be sure) that it's just assumed for modern games. Adding two additional displays to the requirements seems like it would have to force some other performance tradeoffs.

2) Perhaps people can get past the..well, dorkiness, for lack of a better word - of the headset wearer in a social setting, but I'm dubious. Not to mention that a good portion of the fun of (say) Goldeneye 64 was being able to turn to the buddy you just mowed down with an RPC-90 and mock him. If you're wearing a headset, that kind of social interaction is unavailable. Similarly, getting up to get a beer becomes a whole process of pause the game, take off the headset, go get the beer, put the headset back on, and resume.

2a) Come to think of it, just drinking a beer while gaming becomes more challenging if you can't see the world around you.

3) Part of the attraction of the Wii U was the potential for the kind of asymmetric gaming you're describing, and I'm not aware of that mechanic being effectively used to date. Obviously, this is not a well-controlled trial; there are lots of other issues which affect uptake of the Wii U and what's been developed for it, but it is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the concept.

[quote="]Microsoft is already looking into VR-like experiences. They've had a concept for a long time using the Kinect and a projector to expand the game world into your entire living room. That's like taking a VR headset and blowing it up huge. The Kinect already provides full body motion tracking in 3D space, allowing you to be inserted into the world, so to speak. They've got their own novel system that they're working on. It doesn't look like headset-based VR, but it's nonetheless a form a VR.[/quote][/quote]

If you think that's even remotely close the same experience as VR with a headset, I've got a Sega Activator and an NES Power Glove to sell you.

Microsoft is already looking into VR-like experiences. They've had a concept for a long time using the Kinect and a projector to expand the game world into your entire living room. That's like taking a VR headset and blowing it up huge. The Kinect already provides full body motion tracking in 3D space, allowing you to be inserted into the world, so to speak. They've got their own novel system that they're working on. It doesn't look like headset-based VR, but it's nonetheless a form a VR.

As much as I think the Kinect adds to the XB1 experience, I'm dubious that the pieces are in place with respect to either the hardware of the Kinect or the XB1 to achieve the projector-based VR experience you're describing (I assume you're talking about the Illumiroom stuff).

That said, I agree completely that something akin to that technology is what's needed to bring VR to the living room. Admittedly, it's very much a "believe it when I see it" thing in my head, but in concept I'm right with you.

Microsoft is already looking into VR-like experiences. They've had a concept for a long time using the Kinect and a projector to expand the game world into your entire living room. That's like taking a VR headset and blowing it up huge. The Kinect already provides full body motion tracking in 3D space, allowing you to be inserted into the world, so to speak. They've got their own novel system that they're working on. It doesn't look like headset-based VR, but it's nonetheless a form a VR.

If you think that's even remotely close the same experience as VR with a headset, I've got a Sega Activator and an NES Power Glove to sell you.

Point of order: the quote you've got attributed to me was not something I posted.

First, I'm assuming that the headset won't be priced as a throwaway/rare use item. The OR is a $350 piece of hardware; it's almost as much as a PS4. I would expect Sony's hardware to be in the same ballpark, and I just don't see many people buying something that costs almost as much as the console unless they can use it almost as much as the console.

You're probably right about the price, but generally, people are willing to pay a premium price for a unique experience - which, if Sony is first-to-market, it will be pretty unique, at least at first. The price will obviously drop over time, and I don't see this really taking off until the price is closer to $200, but I can also see this taking off virally - you go over to someone's house, play some Fallout 4 in VR, and suddenly $350 sounds pretty damn cheap.

Quote:

Second, I'm assuming that a material chunk of the console gaming demographic are now adults with families. The former part of that assumption is based on what I've seen of demographic information in the console gaming market. The latter is extrapolation, based on the massive percentage of adults who are married with kids. This is not to say that the young and/or single gamer doesn't exist, but I don't think that demographic is large enough to carry a piece of console gaming tech to market success on its own.

Well, as I said, I can see a VR headset being something that gaming dads and moms bust out at night once the "normals" are in bed. Also, can you imagine an experience where a child sees a basic VR world that the parents can control? That would be super-cool.

Quote:

1) I'm not convinced the PS4 hardware is up to the task. 1080p/60fps isn't so within the performance envelope of the PS4 (or the XB1, to be sure) that it's just assumed for modern games. Adding two additional displays to the requirements seems like it would have to force some other performance tradeoffs.

2) Perhaps people can get past the..well, dorkiness, for lack of a better word - of the headset wearer in a social setting, but I'm dubious. Not to mention that a good portion of the fun of (say) Goldeneye 64 was being able to turn to the buddy you just mowed down with an RPC-90 and mock him. If you're wearing a headset, that kind of social interaction is unavailable. Similarly, getting up to get a beer becomes a whole process of pause the game, take off the headset, go get the beer, put the headset back on, and resume.

My friend brought his Oculus Rift dev kit to a small party of mine a few months ago, and yeah, I felt dorky at first...at least until I started playing Half Life 2 and got completely lost in the experience. Even the non-gamers there enjoyed stuff like the roller coaster demo.

Quote:

3) Part of the attraction of the Wii U was the potential for the kind of asymmetric gaming you're describing, and I'm not aware of that mechanic being effectively used to date. Obviously, this is not a well-controlled trial; there are lots of other issues which affect uptake of the Wii U and what's been developed for it, but it is certainly not a ringing endorsement of the concept.

From my limited experience with the Wii U, the only time it actually shines as a unique piece of hardware is during that asymmetric gaming. I think it's a fantastic concept that, sadly, almost no Wii U games leverage.

I'm skeptical on how Morpheus will behave with the PS4. If it's going to achieve 1080p and 60fps, it seems like games will have to be dumbed down for Sony's VR set.

If by dumbed down you mean - the same game with a couple of graphical effects turned off or *gasp* slightly worse AA - then you might be right. Both consoles can do 1080p but most games chose not to because good AA at 720p sometimes looks better than 1080p without AA. If this would be different for VR headsets - well they would change the settings.

Edit: that said, the XBOne might really have some trouble pushing 1080p because of the low ROPs but the PS4 should handle those VR headsets just fine

I'm skeptical on how Morpheus will behave with the PS4. If it's going to achieve 1080p and 60fps, it seems like games will have to be dumbed down for Sony's VR set.

In my experience, graphical fidelity becomes way less important when you're using a VR headset. Half-Life 2 looked like complete shit when I tried my friend's Oculus Rift dev kit, but I didn't care because the experience was fantastic.

I imagine games written to leverage Sony's VR set will have a "playing on TV" graphical setting and a "playing in VR" graphical setting. As others have said, it's likely just a matter of disabling certain effects.

Sony can go f themselves. Hope that company burns to the ground. Really, I cannot fully express just how much I dislike Sony. I can't think of any other company that brings such strong negative feelings out of me. DRM, rootkits, low quality products with short warranties, bad support, the list goes on and on. Do yourself a favor and just avoid Sony altogether.

Then don't buy Sony, don't read articles about Sony, and enjoy everything else out there. I will keep enjoying the great product and innovation they offer!

While I am genuinely impressed with how everything is reported to work, my potential excitement for VR is offset by the fact that they are demonstrating the ability to walk in the VR space. That would be great in controlled environments, such as that VR theme park reported a short while back, but I don't want to walk around my living room, even if only for a few steps. I'm already prone to tripping - I don't need to do it while playing a game.

Just drop me into a virtual world, let me look about this world in a natural, intuitive manner (with my head on a swivel), and make the real world go away for a while. You force me to move my body about the room, and the real world is going to jump back into scope real quick.

Also, I hope they can get the PS4 to support multiple headsets. It would be great to have dual screens with a buddy right there in the same room.

Surprised and impressed that it competes with Occulus, which will perhaps cause them to accelerate their schedule a bit. However, if this is a $500 or $600 dollar peripheral that also requires a move camera and only works on PS4...can't see it making much of an impact on the world at large.

I'm actually thrilled Sony is entering the VR game, and seemingly taking it serious. To me, it only further legitimizes the potential for VR to go mainstream.

With that being said, while Sony may have the financial advantage to add more expensive (thus slightly better) technology than Oculus, the truth is VR would still be a niche concept if not for Oculus' efforts to popularize the concept, and show how it's ready for full adoption. Because of that, I'll be backing the Rift with my wallet.